Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: According to the document submitted by them, the place has areas of high biodiversity importance. It is highly important also because there is mining, hydroelectric power, tourism and other holdings uncontrolled affecting biodiversity and inclusive initiative would help a lot with the presence, in the works and projects that are presenting the same stakeholders.
Evidence B:The territory has a forest ecosystem intervene critical: the forest ecosystem of Araucaria Araucana ((Molina) K. Koch), endangered species according to the IUCN (2013), and vulnerable according to the Ministry of the Environment of Chile. This is a unique forest ecosystem in the world, further characterized by cultural relations between the Mapuche-Pewenche and the ecosystem that supports endemic species of this area of the Cordillera de los Andes.
Evidence C:Proposed territory overlaps with national parks in both Chile and Argentina. These parks are key biodiversity areas.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: According to the spatial resource only unrecoverable carbon support occurs.
Evidence B:There is little information about this area. However, it has been extensively deforested since the beginning of the twentieth century
Evidence C:National parks and Andes mountains included into project area. Mapuche lands also included.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Many of the projects implemented have been administered and implemented by indigenous communities and organizations with the degree of support by national institutions in both countries.
Evidence B:Neither in Argentina nor in Chile there are indigenous territorial governance systems legally recognized by both states. However, in Argentina there are agreements co-management of wild protected areas between the communities of Neuquén and the national authority of national parks.
Evidence C:Not clear whether the Mapuche People holds the lands included into the project area, especially where there is overlap with national parks. However, there are clear community-based governance systems in place.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: It is very important proposal in the area since this initiative hope to make the cultural mapping of the territory, cultural practices of food sovereignty, development of bio-cultural protocols and other activities culturally relevant for communities in the area.
Evidence B:The description of the cultural significance of the area of intervention is extremely broad and applicable to anywhere within the variety of ecosystems that characterize the historic Mapuche territory. It contains references to the Mapuche-Pewenche people inhabiting this area, nor the complexity of cultural relations that characterize the bonds that hold Pewenche with Araucaria forest systems.
Evidence C:Clear explanation of the spiritual and cultural significance. The Mapuche language terms used to explain such significance reflect clear indigenous connections and values.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The area of the initiative is in the current risk of threats that can negatively impact Indigenous Peoples and Local and equally to biodiversity Communities. According to the document submitted by the interested parties, current risks have mentioned biodiversity and communities when exploiting extractive industries, uncontrolled tourism, hydroelectric power, improper use of the forest and acquisitions of neighboring lands.
Evidence B:The proposed territory is under significant and growing pressures in terms of replacing livestock forests and exotic plantations, land acquisition activities of special interest tourism, and other similar phenomena. In particular, the decision of the last governments of Chile to deliver partially, but gradually, the management of protected areas to private dealers, has noticeably helped to open the possibilities of capital investments in the territory for various purposes.
Evidence C:External threats exist in the project area. Threats include extractive industry projects, hydroelectric projects, climate change, and land grabbing. For the Mapuche People, the protected areas created by the States on Mapuche lands without their consent are considered a threat as well.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: The area proposed initiative allows a degree of political conditions for conservation by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. According to the document presented the initiative and the report indicates that there is a CBD voluntary guidelines, mechanisms to implement projects and initiatives and legislation in some areas without proper implementation. Similarly, the document indicates who have worked with government institutions for future initiatives such as free prior and informed consent.
Evidence B:In Argentina, the National Parks Authority has implemented a policy of co-management of protected wilderness areas with significant effects. In particular, agreements on seed collection of Araucaria Araucana for consumption and sale by the communities are a positive example of safeguards to consider for conservation of the species. In Chile there are no co-management agreements in the Mapuche territory.
Evidence C:Argentina has in place laws and policies upholding indigenous peoples’ co-management of natural resources. Chile lacks them. However, Chilean Congress is considering a bill that would somehow enable indigenous led conservation initiatives.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: According to the document presented by the interested parties and support resource, it has a degree of government support for conervación-Led by Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the area and proposed countries. For example, there is much support the initiative of implementing free prior and informed consent. Similarly, support government co-management of protected areas.
Evidence B:Again, the provincial government of Neuquen in Argentina, and the federal National Parks Authority, have implemented programs co-management of natural resources in the province, including commercial logging of forest species introduced and planted in the area you decades. In Chile there is no cooperation between public services or forest biodiversity conservation and local indigenous communities in the south, except for the extreme north of the country in case of Lican Antay or Atacameños.
Evidence C:There are national programs supporting indigenous-led conservation in Argentina, not in Chile. However, the EoL does not provide information of relevant sub-national programs in Argentina.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: According to the reading of the document, few initiatives have been implemented who lead Indigenous Peoples and local communities. However, for example, the initiative put forward states that has no basis for making improvements management plans and territorial governance, with different proposals for community conserved areas and overlapping with areas protected by states.
Evidence B:Although many initiatives have been implemented over the past 50 years, rarely they maintain them after 3-5 years, both in Chile and Argentina. Given the level of subordination and control over indigenous peoples in the territory, state financial support seems key to the possibilities of a project to move beyond a pilot. However, this means that projects are subject to individual governments and their political orientations regarding the IPLC.
Evidence C:In connection to the above, the EoL includes information about relevant initiatives in Argentina, but not in Chile. However, this particular project embraces a conservation approach embraced by the Mapuche People as a whole, which lays out their conservation aspirations that could be scaled up and may inform relevant discussions being held in the Chilean Congress.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: According to the current co-financing of landscapes, there is only one approved project that is related to the initiative. However, there smaller amounts related to the initiative by stakeholders.
Evidence B:The most important projects are linked to few government conservation initiatives, and other research and development from academia. These are rarely linked to the initiatives of IPLC in the territory.
Evidence C:About 6 projects were listed. 2 are clearly related to this project’s goals.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The initiative has a goal well aligned with the traditional structures of the Mapuche people, their knowledge, their traditional practices and community age-old practice of food sovereignty.
Evidence B:The proposal has two main problems: a) seems to overlap the objectives and work program of the proposing institution on the overall goal of the initiative to provide global environmental benefits; b) All proposed actions and work plan have been or are being carried out at present in the territory, and by the same actors, with no or poor results regarding governance and territorial control. In this regard, the central proposal fails in demonstrating why these same actions now they will succeed.
Evidence C:Relevant project activities and goals included. Particular attention is given to strengthening indigenous governance.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The initiative presents real and objective need for communities with a successful outcome in the future. One of the bases of its objectives is that they have been working for some years in the same area and their local knowledge is paramount. Similarly, the participation of the traditional authorities of the Mapuche people and their contribution to the Eol is very obvious in the document.
Evidence B:See justification 1.
Evidence C:Project activities and results clearly stated. However, further information is need to better comprehend how the forest management capacity of the Mapuche People located in Chile would be strengthened.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The initiative may not contribute fully overcome the threats and opportunities allow complete control by Indigenous Peoples and local communities to lead our conservation. It is understood that there are political and economic interests when the mining, hydroelectric industry and tourism. Thus, contributing completely is a bit ambitious.
Evidence B:The proposal is based on the objective of strengthening Mapuche forms of territorial governance for conservation, based on its own institutions, traditional authorities and its regulatory system that would have remained to the present. However, there is no structural evidence regarding the integrity of the cultural system Mapuche, in recognition of its political and administrative structure (LOF), or the willingness of States to talk about these issues. We must remember that there is no constitutional recognition in Chile of the existence of indigenous peoples, unlike Argentina.
Evidence C:While threats have been clearly identified, no clear statement has been made on now the project will help overcome them. Further information on this regard is needed.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: According to information submitted by the interested parties to questions 8, 9 and 17 proposed activities are achievable in the range of the budget for a period of 5 years between $ 500,000 to $ 2,000,000 to implement the project.
Evidence B:The proposed activities are not sufficiently well detailed to estimate your budget. For example, how many funds are required to “strengthen the good life”?
Evidence C:The activities committed under this project can be achieved within the project period. Clear alignment with the EoI range of investment.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: Citizen Observatory has projects in relation to the initiative presented and is listed in question 6 and reflexively support the same species and practices by Mapuche communities.
Evidence B:The project has 6 other projects in the territory, including international and state sources of financing in the Argentine case. Other financing of the proposer totaling more than USD 1.000.000
Evidence C:About 6 projects listed. All of them refer to concrete sources of co-financing.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: According to question 12 of the Eol, the overall benefits of the environment is very high, substantial, realistic.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:According to the EoI, the potential is very high. However, project lead recognizes that this estimation is not based on an actual mapping of the territory concerned.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Additional results are contributing to the objectives of the project according to the answer to question 13. It is very important empowerment, sharing knowledge and practices, analysis and territorial planning for conservation, protection and maintenance of biological diversity future generations.
Evidence B:There seems to be a confusion between indicators and targets, and described the same issues in both cases.
Evidence C:Some indicators were included. However, project lead states that project seeks to hold further discussions with the Mapuche organizations to better determine cultural and livelihoods results.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: Question 16 does not respond fully to the question, however, the initiative ensures benefits of long-term terms of the governance system of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and biodiversity. One of the elements that contribute to the initiative is to strengthen practices and knowledge system for future generations.
Evidence B:The long-term vision of the project is more closely related to the issue of the recognition of political, economic and cultural rights Mapuche, before the creation of spaces of governance and biodiversity conservation in the territory. It seems to survive the confusion between corporate goals and objectives of the ICI.
Evidence C:The goal of strengthening indigenous governance is being pursued by the Mapuche organizations for years with very limited financial support. This goal is the long-term goal that reflects their vision for long-term sustainability.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The proposal reflects tangentially nations contributing to the priorities defined in the ENB and NDC countries.
Evidence B:The evidence provided is reasonable national policy in this regard, although it is not possible to assess the specific links between such commitments or policy and the EOI.
Evidence C:The EoI does build upon national priorities set both in Argentina and Chile. The Argentinean NBSAP ends in 2020. This project could help define priorities for the new NBSAP.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The wisdom of the Mapuche people in relation to duality in their culture emphasizes the full and effective participation of women Mapuche in all current and future activities.
Evidence B:The arguments provided are general and poorly structured as proposals for action.
Evidence C:Gender mainstreaming seems to be deeply rooted in the Mapuche worldview. Mapuche women to be included in project implementation. However, project activities do not lay out concrete focus on gender mainstreaming.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The importance for the Mapuche its governance, its improvements in practices and knowledge system on its territory and conservation of the forest demonstrates the importance given to their leaders and their environment.
Evidence B:The proposed actions lack practical reality for their implementation from a logic of sustainable conservation. They are closer to ethno-political claims in a context of subordination to nation states.
Evidence C:The proposed project is an innovation embraced by Mapuche organizations located in Argentina and Chile. The potential to scale up is clear.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: It is understood that technical issues Eol was filed by an NGO but beneficiaries are the Mapuche people. Similarly, the participation of the Mapuche in the document is substantial and reflects their full and effective participation in it.
Evidence B:The proposal clearly describes the Observatorio Ciudadano, organization, objectives, work areas, previous projects, among others. However, it is not possible to clearly identify the forms of empowerment that could be transmitted or associated reinforce the IPLC as a result of this project.
Evidence C:Project lead is Observatorio Ciudadano, a human rights organization. Project lead is not an indigenous organization. However, the EoI includes includes two Mapuche organizations and two non-indigenous organizations as partners. All project partners are included in decision-making and project implementation. No more prominent role is given to the indigenous organizations partnering in this project.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: NGO demonstrated in the field liderazco document on the proposed work in relation to Indigenous Peoples. Also highlights the partnership between the NGO and the Mapuche people on relevant issues related to the initiative for many years.
Evidence B:The evidence is robust with respect to the leadership of the Citizen Observatory on the promotion and defense of indigenous rights. However, it is not clear about his work in biodiversity conservation.
Evidence C:Project lead is Observatorio Ciudadano, a human rights organization. Project lead is not an indigenous organization. However, the EoI includes includes two Mapuche organizations and two non-indigenous organizations as partners. All project partners are included in decision-making and project implementation. No more prominent role is given to the indigenous organizations partnering in this project.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The answer to question 21 reflects the proponent has very strong partners with indigenous and non-indigenous to bring the work to an appropriate outcome organizations.
Evidence B:The leading organization of the project includes the IPLC in designing the project governance.
Evidence C:The Mapuche organizations involved in this project are included in decision-making and project implementation. But such roles are also given to other non-indigenous organizations involved. So no clear or differentiated roles are been given to the Mapuche organizations.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The proposer in the document shows that have staff with technical capacity and expertise to address environmental problems, their causes and barriers.
Evidence B:Proponents have previous experience in GEF projects, but there remains confusion of the initial objectives of the proposal.
Evidence C:Project proponent with limited capacity. It relies on indigenous and non-indigenous project partners.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The proponent meets the need for the project and financial management for the scale of the proposed effort. Similarly, the document shows their financial experiences in past and current projects.
Evidence B:The evidence presented thus demonstrated.
Evidence C:Project proponent with clear capacity. No clear information is provided about the project partners.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: The paper presents the answer to question 28 clear explanation about the experience of the organization on the guides and other standards required by GEF. An example of this is the project funded by my GEFA through the Global Initiative Global Support ICCA (territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities) during the year 2019.
Evidence B:The experience of the Citizen Observatory in implementing proposed GEF and other international funding, it seems very solid.
Evidence C:Project proponent with such experience. Provides information of a GEF-related project.